Monday, October 25, 2010

William Cooper (WC): “Psychopolitics,” ladies and gentlemen, “is the art and the science of asserting and maintaining dominion over the thoughts and loyalties of individuals, officers, bureaus, and masses and the effecting of the conquest of enemy nations through mental healing.” This I quoted directly from the “Communist Manual of Instructions of Psychopolitical Warfare.” Is there a method behind all this subterfuge and deception? ‘Tradition’ might be a better word; the use of Machiavellian-style manipulations has been around for centuries. But it appears to have gone from an art to a science in this century. As socialist/philosopher Bertrand Russell once said of mass psychology, “Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populous will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated.” The use of what Stalin’s secret police chief, Lavrenty Beria, termed “psychopolitics” was covered in the January 1995 issue of Relevance Magazine; “Psychological warfare in America” was the title of the article. The above-quoted Russian textbook on psychopolitics was exposed to the public by a former Communist-American, Kenneth Goff, who testified before Congress in 1939 about Communist subversion in this country. And if you’d like a reference to that particular piece, see volume 9 of the 1939 House Committee on Un-American Activities. In the manual, a key element of brainwashing was revealed: constant defamation of the target population. The manual may well be one of the most vicious political tracts ever written, making “Mein Kampf” look like a paperback on pop psychology. To give a bit of the flavour of the psychopolitic s manual, here, ladies and gentlemen, are a few excerpts.

“One of the first and foremost missions of the psychopolitician is to make an attack upon Communism and insanity synonymous; it should become the definition of insanity of the paranoid variety. That a paranoid believes he is being attacked by Communists, thus, at once, the support of the individual attacking Communism will fall away and wither.” You can find that on page 25. “Propaganda should continue and stress the rising of insanity in a country, the entire field of human behaviour for the benefit of the country can, at length, be broadened into abnormal behaviour. Thus, anyone indulging in any eccentricity, particularly the eccentricity of combating psychopolitics could be silenced by the authoritative opinion on the part of a psychopolitical operative that he was acting in an abnormal fashion.” You can find that on page 33. “The educational programs of psychopolitics must, at every hand, seek out the levels of youth who will become the leaders in the country’s future and educate them into the belief of the animalistic nature of man. This must be made fashionable, they must be taught to frown upon ideas, upon individual endeavor. They must be taught, above all things, that the salvation of man is to be found only by his adjusting thoroughly to this environment.” And you can find that on page 43. “Religion must be made synonymous with neurosis and psychosis. ” That’s on page 44. “Degradation and conquest are companions; however, degradation can be accomplished much more insidiously and much more effectively with consistent and continual defamation. Defamation is the best and foremost weapon of psychopolitics on the broad field.” You’ll find that on page 41. “The populous must be brought into the belief that every individual within it who rebels, in any way, shape or form against efforts and activities to enslave the whole must be considered to be a deranged person whose eccentricities are neurotic or insane and who must have at once the treatment of a psychopolitician.” That’s on page 42. “An optimum condition in such a program of degradation would address itself to the military forces of the nation and bring them rapidly away from any other beliefs than that the disobedient one must be subjected to mental treatment, and enslavement of a population can fail only if these rebellious individuals are left to exert their individual influences upon their fellow citizens, sparking them into rebellion, calling into account their nobilities and freedoms. And lest these restless individuals are stamped out and given in to psychopolitical operatives early in the conquest, there will be nothing but trouble as the conquest continues.” And that is also on page 42. “The officials of the government, students, readers, partakers of entertainment, must all be indoctrinated by whatever means into the complete belief that the restless, the ambitious, the natural leaders are suffering from environmental maladjustments which can only be healed by recourse to psychopolitical operatives and the guise of healers.” Page 43. “By thus degrading the general belief in the status of man, it is relatively simple, with cooperation from the economic salience being driven into the country, to drive citizens apart, one from another to bring about a question of the wisdom of their own government and to cause them to actively beg for enslavement.” That may be found on page 43. “Should any writings of psychopolitics come to view, it is only necessary to brand them a hoax and laugh them out of countenance, thus, psychopolitical activities are easy to defend.” Page 34.

Now, for your information, you may obtain the book “Brainwashing: A synthesis of the Russian textbook on psychopolitics” from Robert Brock, that’s Robert Brock, P.O. Box 15288. That’s Robert Brock, P.O. Box 15288, Washington, D.C., 20003. Just send 5 dollars to Robert Brock, P.O. Box 15288, Washington, D.C., 20003. Just send 5 dollars, tell him you want “Brainwashing: A synthesis of the Russian textbook on psychopolitics.” Now, most Americans would find it hard to take these almost cartoonishly diabolical statements seriously. Edward Hunter, the man who coined the term “brainwashing” after he had witnessed it firsthand as a journalist in red China, said as much before Congress on March 13th, 1958. “The United States is the main battlefield in this red war. We need only read what the Communists themselves say but we refuse to do so, exactly as we could not believe that Hitler meant what he said in Mein Kampf.” It was during the McCarthy era, ladies and gentlemen, that the ‘anti-Communism=insanity’ dictum began to enjoy mass propagation by not only political demagogues but leaders in the fields of mental health and psychology. One brief example, in a chapter on mental hygiene, George S. Stevenson, M.D. of the National Association for Mental Health, wrote the following in his book, “Education for mental health” in 1954. And I quote, “For example, a person who is continuously suspicious of others, who sees an enemy - perhaps a Communist - lurking behind every acquaintance who differs from himself, is a person who is very unsure of himself. He will be apt to try to control the world about him in such a way that it will be least threatening.” Now, folks, that was a fairly harmless example of the kind of soft-touch stereotyping directed at those who opposed Communism. When this association between anti-Communism and insanity is repeated ad nauseum until it resonates throughout society, what results is a subtle change in the public mindset. Soon, people who might have expressed the sentiments or opinions start to keep their thoughts to themselves. And before long, such discussions are considered ‘beyond the pale’ of respectable conversation. Edward Hunter, who spent 2 years in the old OSS teaching psychological warfare countermeasures, told a congressional committee in 1958 that he first learned of the term ‘brainwashing’ when, as a reporter in Asia, he spoke with a man who had escaped red China. The man related the term ‘xi nao’ or ‘wash brain’, Hunter stated. Whenever somebody said something the Peiping Government didn’t like, a relative or a friend was liable to say to him, “Watch out! You’ll get your brains washed!” Isn’t it amazing?

But the psychopolitics manual was written in the ‘30s and all this talk about Communist subversion in this country was discredited, along with tailgunner Joe McCarthy, back in the ‘50s. Anyone who is afraid of a Communist behind every bush was viewed as a paranoid, right? They’re still doing that today; they call it “McCarthyism.” That’s what they brand you with. “Shame on you, you’re finding Communists!” Well, the Washington Post, ladies and gentlemen, has had to admit that, lo and behold, there actually were real, live Communists who penetrated the United States government hierarchy. Not just the exceptional Aldrich A mes mole, but over 100 agents in many different agencies of the United States government. After years of keeping the information buried, the National Security Agency (NSA) finally released the fruits of its Venona Program which, according to the Post, produced intercepted, decoded Soviet spy messages with NSA notes identifying agents mentioned in code in the cables. The story was carried in a recent article by Michael Dobbs which appeared in the March 6th, 1996 Washington Post, a newspaper which has done much to ridicule anti-Communists for decades. The agents identified in the documents include: Laughlin Curry, a personal aide to Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and May Price, the secretary to influential newspaper columnist Walter Lippmann. An agent known to the Soviets as “Mlad” was identified as Theodore A. Hall, who helped the Reds obtain the Atomic bomb. Nevertheless, the Justice department has refused to disclose why it did not prosecute Hall. Other agents working for the KGB included former War Department official William Ullman, former intelligence officials J. Joseph Julius and Jane Foster, Harold Glasser of the Treasury Department, George Silverman of the Air Force, Nathan Silvermaster of the Board of Economic Warfare, and Harry Dexter White of the Treasury Department. All of those were named by Elizabeth Bentley in her testimony to the House Un-American Activities Committee. But, you see, she was laughed off as a ‘kook’ along with her reformed fellow traveler Whittaker Chambers, who fingered Alger Hiss as a Communist spy. Alger Hiss is responsible, almost singlehandedly, for the authorship of the United Nations charter – which, when placed side by side with the old charter…I should say, constitution of the Soviet Union, they are almost identical. Coincidence, you say? Not on your life. Not on your life.

Alger Hiss is also implicated in the Venona records just released. The Post quoted John Haynes, historian at the Library of Congress who’s written extensively about KGB spying in the United States: “This will be painful to many historians. Bentley has been mocked in many books as a blonde spy queen. These documents support what she was saying.” So the testimony of Elizabeth Bentley and Whittaker Chambers and tailgunner Joe McCarthy’s cause for concern was correct after all. In fact, Joseph McCarthy was absolutely, 100% right and it was because he was stopped in his investigations and the Communists and the Marxists were not rooted out of government that they were able, over the years, to take complete and utter control of every, every branch of bureaucracy within the United States of America.

What was the extent of this high- level penetration at that time in history? Lance Gay of Scripps Howard News Service wrote, “Transcripts of cables sent by KGB agents to Moscow in 1944 and 1945 were intercepted by United States cryptanalysts and indicate that more than 100 Soviet agents had infiltrated the State Department, Justice Department, War Department, Treasury Department, and even the Office of Strategic Services, the precursor to the Central Intelligence Agency.” For reference, see the Detroit News, March 14th, 1996, page 10A. So then again, doesn’t this discussion amount to blatant McCarthyism? You see, in talking about this, aren’t we politically incorrect? Isn’t this a major boo-boo today? Aren’t we in danger of being branded McCarthyites? Well, what do you think the respectable establishment in this country is engaging in by shamefully lumping homeschoolers and talk show hosts in with murderous terrorists? Of course, this doesn’t make it right; what makes it right (and necessary) to candidly discuss all this is the facts, ladies and gentlemen, the facts. The truth; seek ye the truth and the truth will make you free, nothing else can do it. On March 1st, 1992, the same Washington Post had to admit, that despite all the scorn and abuse heaped onto paranoid anti-Communists for decades by that newspaper and scores of eastern establishment liberals, the Soviet Union was, in fact, directly funding Gus Hall’s Communist Party USA Independent researchers had found proof among the documents opened by the archives of the former Soviet Union. And I wrote as much in my book many years ago.

The files detailed the funds sent by the Soviet Union to its Communist parties set up around the world and included a 1987 letter from Gus Hall to Mikhail Gorbachev, which began, “Dear Comrade, I don’t like to raise the question of finances, but when the wolf is at the door, one is forced to cry out.” Documents revealed that Gorbachev sent 2 million dollars and Hall sent back a signed receipt. Of course, shortly afterwards, Mikhail Gorbachev became “Gorby” and won the hearts and many minds of Liberal Americans and later used funds raised by the Republican National Committee and big business to open a western office of his Gorbachev Foundation inside the longest-standing United States Army base in history, the Presidio in San Francisco. Further evidence, ladies and gentlemen, that the laughing Liberals of the last few decades have egg on their faces is provided by Harvey Klehr, John Haynes and Fridrikh Firsov’s 1995 work entitled “The secret world of American Communism” which uses the Russian’s own documents to show the extent of Soviet backing of Communist activity in this country. So the question then becomes: if they had at least 100 agents in high- level posts back then (that we knew about and that we know about now), how many do they have now when we no longer believe they’re a threat and how many did they have over the years that we have never known about and probably never will?

Aldrich Ames occupied a very high post within the Central Intelligence Agency. And do you think it’s a paranoid fantasy to imagine that there are those in still higher positions right now? Klehr, Haynes, and Firsov noted at the close of their book “because Soviet intelligence archives remain closed, the activities described are but the tip of the iceberg, the now visible part of a much larger and still obscure secret world of American Communism.” Now, if that hasn’t got you sitting on the edge of your chair then I guess nothing ever will.

Why isn’t this kicking off a national debate and congressional investigations to determine the current extent of KGB subversion? Why isn’t the press blaring this information on the front pages of every newspaper across the country? Well, because, you see, that would amount to McCarthyism. And besides, facts really don’t mean much to people with closed minds who would rather believe something that is politically correct rather than look at the truth staring them right in the face.

As Paul Greenberg of the Los Angeles Times syndicate wrote about the NSA Venona files, “the latest cache of documents will not convince them; true believers are not daunted by mere evidence, there is nothing here they cannot deny, dismiss, or explain away. History, like a good suit, can be made to fit. That is their fate, that nothing is immutable – even the past. Funny, I don’t recall reading this news story in the New York Times; I must have missed it, or the Times did.” Such is the effect of strategic psychological operations on the targeted nation’s public opinion. This is why brainwashing expert Edward Hunter ridiculed the notion of a “Communist party when it is, in fact,” he insisted, “a Communist psychological warfare organization.” Former KGB insiders like Anatoliy Golitsyn would tend to agree; although we quoted him before, it’s worth repeating the words of Russian KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov who discussed his former agency’s efforts at ideological subversion or what they call “demoralization” in America. In a 1989 video interview by author G. Edward Griffin, Bezmenov explained, “the key to understanding the blindness is seeing that government leaders, the press, educators, etc. appear to be functioning as a part of a gigantic conspiracy, not because they are all under a centralized discipline or control, but because they share the same foundational philosophy and beliefs.”

You see this slow process actually changes the way we all respond to factual information. Most of it (that’s demoralization) is done by Americans to Americans, thanks to a lack of moral standards. As I mentioned before, ladies and gentlemen, exposure to true information does not matter anymore. You see, a person who is demoralized is unable to assess true information; the facts tell nothing to him. Bezmenov accurately described the intellectual invalids now masquerading as responsible journalists, bureaucrats, and elected representatives. He said, “They are programmed to think and react to certain stimuli in a certain pattern. You cannot change their mind even if you exposed them to authentic information, even if you show them that white is white and black is black, you still cannot change the basic perception and their logic of behaviour.” Sad? No,ladies and gentlemen, it’s not sad, it’s tragic. And this may provide insight into the a lmost knee-jerk solutions to national problems, which are recycled despite overwhelming evidence that they do not work, and in many cases, even worse than the problem. Some examples: violent crime, well, we have violent crime, let’s pass gun control laws; welfare fraud, oh, well let’s fund more programs; AIDS, oh my goodness, let’s pass out condoms and syringes; Russian treaty violations, well, we’ll send them more financial aid. We see the same, rigorously conditioned responses by journalists or so-called experts to talk show callers who make the mistake of asking a question with conspiratorial overtones. No more capable of restraining themselves than Pavlov’s dogs were of salivating, they blurt out that remarkably consistent refrain, “that sounds like some kind of conspiracy theory.” Of course, Ivan Pavlov rewarded his obedient K-9s; likewise, the journalist who, shall we say, learns his lines well continues to advance up the sleazy ladder of success, leaving his less compliant counterparts in the dust. A dissimilar process of natural selection was identified in Christopher Simpson’s 1994 book called “Science of coercion: communication research and psychological warfare, 1945-1960.”

This book shows that those social science professors who did not play ball with the prevailing and overwhelmingly government- funded opinions in the field of psychological warfare were conditioned to comply or they were nudged out of prominence. Simpson writes, “In some, there were both positive and negative reinforcements for academics participating in U.S. psychological warfare projects. Among the perks, it is clear that use of government funding facilitated certain types of research and the winning of professional prestige that might not otherwise have been available.” Among the pearls of non-conformity, “the price tag for scholars who refused to support the Cold War consensus could be quite high: shunning by colleagues; firing; loss of tenure or prospects for promotion; FBI inquiries; hostile newspaper stories; or worse. Even prominent academics were not exempt. FBI and U.S. military intelligence agents kept American sociological society conventions under surveillance in an effort to smoke out radicals. Charles Beard, a long-time Dean of American Historians and former President of the American Historical Association was drummed out of the profession when he refused to read just his work to the new political realities.

Hit Counter

Fair Use Notice

§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use40
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.